On December 15, 2023, a Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s obviousness decision in ParkerVision, Inc. v. Vidal.1 At issue in this appeal was whether the Board...more
On February 17, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC that affirmed a district court’s decision to grant defendants’ Rule...more
On February 24, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, LLC that affirmed a district court’s injunction requiring Jazz...more
On June 13, 2022, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion that vacated the district court’s judgment of indefiniteness, deciding that the ruling was based on an erroneous claim construction. The patents-in-suit...more
In Quanergy Systems, Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar USA, Inc.1, a Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB or Board) decisions that claims of a Velodyne patent were...more
In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc.,1 the Federal Circuit affirmed the obviousness analysis performed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), which found that Corcept’s patent for methods of...more
A patentee may establish “minimum contacts” in a forum, thus subjecting itself to specific personal jurisdiction, by sending a cease and desist letter to the forum. Precedent concerning this issue has been evolving....more
11/19/2021
/ Cease and Desist Orders ,
Declaratory Judgments ,
Ford Motor Co. v Montana Eighth Judicial District Court ,
Foreign Defendants ,
Limited Liability Company (LLC) ,
Minimum Contacts ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Personal Jurisdiction ,
Principal Place of Business
On August 2, 2021, in Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 20-1715, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021), a Federal Circuit panel decision, with a dissent, upheld the district court’s denial of Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) motion to...more
In a June 11, 2021 decision, Yu v. Apple Inc., a Federal Circuit panel issued a precedential decision, with a dissent, upholding the invalidation of patent claims to a digital camera on a motion to dismiss. The claims were...more
On April 7 2021, the Federal Circuit in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 20-1561, — F.3d —-, 2021 WL 1287437, *1, *5 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2021), held that Apple failed to establish standing to appeal inter partes review (IPR)...more
In Trustees of Columbia University v. Illumina, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) decision to invalidate five patents owned by Columbia,...more
On February 11, 2021, Amarin Pharma, Inc. (“Amarin”) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the Federal Circuit’s decision to affirm a finding that Amarin’s patents are invalid as...more
3/5/2021
/ Amarin ,
Burden of Proof ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Reaffirmation ,
Rule 36 ,
Section 103
On January 6, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published a Memorandum that changed the indefiniteness analysis under 35 U.S.C. §112 that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) applies in...more
On October 2, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.1 that addressed whether a generic drug manufacturer induced infringement of a method of use patent when its product...more